Johannesburg - This week the US government threw fear and panic among the SA populace when they warned of an imminent terror attack in Sandton over this weekend.
Immediately, the debate ensued, inevitably questioning if the SA security establishment was aware of the threat and if so, why have they not issued a public alert as the US has. There are two pertinent points to consider from the episode. Firstly, if the US – through their means and ways – have established a looming threat to the safety of people anywhere in SA and decided to issue a public alert to save lives, well done.
However, which brings me to the second point: Surely at the highest echelons of government, SA and the US must have established lines of diplomatic channels through which, away from the public glare and scrutiny – they share information and exchange views. The social media platforms were abuzz with debates - for and against - over the manner, the methodology, that the US chose in communicating a very important message of national and international interest.
A retired SANDF general who also worked in foreign missions for the country argued strenuously against how the US communicated the threat. He wrote: “South Africa is an independent and sovereign State. It has bilateral relations with countries where (in) they’ve created communication channels. No government can address the population of another without reporting through existing channels. It doesn’t matter if the (country is) UK, US, Russia, etc, these are international protocols,” argued the retired General, whose identity I have no license to disclose.
Now, in my view, basic diplomatic relations dictate the establishment of various protocols, including communications. What is utterly unclear amid the discourse that dominated the news is the argument by some that our government was approached by their US counterparts with the information and elected to do nothing about it. Here in lies the danger that is precipitated by poor communication or complete lack thereof.
All of a sudden, some among the citizens hold a view, publicly unsubstantiated, that Pretoria was provided with a terror threat plot and did nothing. The statement from the government did not offer much help either.
It read: “The South African government has noted the terror alert issued by the US Embassy on its website. This is part of the US government’s standard communication to its citizens.”
Now, here is the catch: The US government uses a public platform (their website, accessible to the SA public) “communicating only with their citizens”, according to the media liaison officers in the Presidency. Their statement would have been accurate if and only if the US government had communicated with their citizens using exclusive channels for use by their citizens.
Despite the public relations fancy footwork by our government in their feeble attempt to minimise the embarrassment caused to them by the US government, the sense of being grossly undermined remains. Away from the media relations, and social media platforms management by well-resourced personnel, the SA government must have been seething with anger at their US counterpart.
Angry in silence, and secretly, because the government has no appetite to publicly spit their misgivings toward the Biden administration. The move could enrage Big Brother and the price too big to pay, especially at international fora. The government statement “noted” meekly, amidst a frenzy of to-and-fro debate with no apparent clarity on the authenticity of the US’s claims of possessing intelligence about the imminent threat on SA soil.
The government statement further read in part: “It is the responsibility of the South African security forces to ensure that all people within our country feel safe. We are working hard at keeping our nation and her people safe.”
The statement continued: “We continue to monitor for threats to our citizens, nation, and sovereignty. Threats are assessed continuously and acted upon to ensure the safety of all.”
Well and good. But the glaring omission in the government’s “extracted” response is the lack of clarity and details, particularly on being direct and forthright. The question is: Are they (SA authorities) in possession of any specific threat to large crowds of people gathering in Sandton over this weekend? Their statement is rather too generic, and does very little, if at all, in addressing the concerns, nay, fears, raised by the US government.
To say that our government assesses threats “continuously” and “are acted upon to ensure the safety of all” does not answer question one bit. It fails dismally to deal with the elephant in the room: Are we facing a threat “in Sandton”, “this weekend”, that is the question. To answer these two questions above would help the public to make better sense of the veracity of the US story.
Under the circumstances, all that most people could do is assess the health of the existing bilateral relations between Pretoria and Washington, and do so within the context of greater geopolitical roles that each side play. Quite clearly, there appears to be more that causes both sides to drift apart than operate in tandem.
For example, SA has steadfastly refused to join the US-led anti-Russian economic sanctions since they were imposed in February when the Ukraine war broke out. At the UN, Pretoria has refused to vote with the US and the West in support of Ukraine in the ongoing conflict, instead calling for dialogue by all sides to end the war.
This week, SA Presidential spokesperson Vincent Magwenya said the government will not refuse a Russian tycoon in a yacht from docking in Cape Town harbour, unequivocally stating that President Ramaphosa’s administration will enforce only the UN-approved sanctions against any target.
So far, anti-Russian sanctions are led by the US together with the EU, calling them “international” and coercing particularly weaker nations to mimic their actions or face the consequences in the form of their slice of sanctions for failing to abide by the punitive measures against Russia.
The truth about sound bilateral relations is that had they existed between Pretoria and Washington, the US would not have issued such a massively important public notice solo, without the participation of the SA government in the communique.
The events of this week reveal the extent of the deteriorating relations between the two nations, despite President Ramaphosa’s state visit to the US in September that was disrupted by the sudden passing of Queen Elizabeth II in the UK.
Both Presidents Ramaphosa and Biden had to hurriedly rearrange their diaries, flying in great haste to London to attend the Queen’s funeral.
Behind the scenes, the Ramaphosa administration must be working extremely hard to engage with the White House. The last thing any developing nation wants is to be on the wrong side of America’s foreign policy.
Countries that had been did not enjoy much of life. Examples are aplenty. They include Cuba, which has been under the US sanctions that include a blockade for over 60 years, Venezuela, whose oil the US has ensured does not breathe oxygen into the local economy, Iraq, which the US invaded in 2003 on the false claims of possessing weapons of mass destruction that were never found – but Iraq’s leader Saddam Hussein was killed during the illegal invasion.
Another example is nearer home in Libya, where anti-Western Pan-Africanist ruler Muammar Gadaffi was violently ousted from power before being raped and murdered during a US-fermented uprising in 2011. In Syria President Bashar al-Assad would have long been ousted and killed had the Russian President not come to his rescue, the list of examples is too long. It makes one sympathise with President Ramaphosa’s government. They seem to know what’s good for them.
And in the final analysis, the SA government better hope and pray that the US’s warning does not turn out to be true. Otherwise, it would raise more questions than answers for our local security cluster which always seem to be found wanting. So far they are struggling to deal with the illegal miners called the Zama-Zamas. The kingpins behind the July unrest are still at large. Crime is sky-high. The trust deficit between the State and the population is humongous. No wonder some people who defended the US’s megaphone diplomacy were arguing that “don’t kill the messenger” - deal with the message.
Makoe is a Freelance Diplomatic Writer.